Racist Speech on College Campuses
"Why doesn't the ACLU support hate
speech codes on college campuses?"
BACKGROUND
Racism, sexism and homophobia is growing on college campuses around the country. In response, many universities have adopted policies that address bigotry by placing restrictions on speech. The alternative to such restrictions, many administrators argue, is to allow bigots to run rampant and to subject their targets to a loss of equal educational opportunity. To date, the ACLU and its affiliates have challenged overly broad speech codes enacted by the University of Connecticut, the University of Michigan, the University of Wisconsin and the University of California.
IN BRIEF
The power of a university to eliminate bias on campus ultimately depends not on its ability to punish a racist speaker, but instead on the depth of its commitment to the principles of equality and education.
No social institution is better suited to fight bigotry than the university. It can do so in its courses and perhaps most importantly through the way it conducts itself as a community.
We're not talking about choosing between the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment. We're talking about choosing between regulating speech and regulating action. Murder is illegal. Talking about it isn't.
ACLU POLICY
At its October 1990 meeting, the ACLU Board of Directors unanimously adopted a policy on Free Speech and Bias on College Campuses. The policy stresses our longstanding belief that "all members of the academic community have the right to hold and to express views that others may find repugnant, offensive or emotionally distressing." The policy does not prohibit colleges from enacting disciplinary codes aimed at restricting acts of harassment, intimidation and invasion of privacy. The ACLU believes the proper response to bigotry is education and speech. "Colleges and universities," the policy says, "have an affirmative obligation to combat racism, sexism, homophobia and other forms of bias."
ARGUMENTS, FACTS, QUOTES
Freedom of thought and expression is particularly important on the college campuses. The educational forum is where individuals come together to participate in a process of shared inquiry and where the success of that endeavor depends on an atmosphere of openness, intellectual honesty and tolerance for the ideas and opinions of others, even when hateful or offensive.
Compromising free speech ultimately threatens the rights of minorities. All too often, regulations on speech are used to silence the very people they were designed to protect in the first place. As Eleanor Holmes Norton has said: "It is technically impossible to write an anti-speech code that cannot be twisted against speech nobody means to bar. It has been tried and tried and tried."
"At the 1985 Biennial, we rejected Catherine MacKinnon's impassioned
plea to censor pornography reflecting sexist attitudes. Instead, we
renewed our efforts to combat sexist actions. And a decade ago, we
rejected the urgent plea of Holocaust survivors in Skokie, that we should
not defend Nazi's anti-Semitic speech. Instead, we supported more vigorous
investigation and prosecution of anti-Semitic vandalism and other hate crimes."
Nadine Strossen, ACLU President
The line between protected expression and unprotected behavior is sometimes quite thin. In determining where that line is drawn, the ACLU has always closely scrutinized the specific language of a regulation and its application on a case-by-case basis. For racist speech codes, the line will be determined by considering the time and site of the incident or incidents, the nature of the relationship between the speak and his or her target and whether the conduct is part of a pattern of behavior.
"The social climate is suddenly less tolerant to free expression across a
wide range of issues. One theme in all of these cases is that we can adjust
our concept of free speech, slice off a few tiny corners and leave the core
intact. But that's the argument that's always been used to justify restricting speech.
Geoffrey Stone, Dean University of Chicago Law School
RECOMMENDED ACTIVITIES
The new policy emphasizes that all students have the right to participate fully in the educational process without fear of discrimination. To make that a reality, the ACLU urged that colleges and universities take a variety of actions, including the following:
To develop comprehensive plans aimed at reducing prejudice, responding promptly to incidents of bigotry and discriminatory harassment.
To vigorously attract minorities, women nd members of other historically disadvantaged groups as students, faculty members and administrators to help stop feelings of isolation and to insure real integration and diversity in student life.
To offer and consider whether to require all students to enroll in courses in the history and meaning of prejudice, including racism, sexism and other forms of invidious discrimination.
To establish new-student orientation programs and continuing counseling programs that enable students of different races, sexes, religions and sexual orientations to learn to live with each other.
To review and, where appropriate, revise course offerings as well as extracurricular programs to recognize the contributions of those whose art, music, literature and learning have been insufficiently reflected in the curriculum of many American colleges and universities. |
